-

This is something that’s been on my mind for a while now.
Van Gogh, the profoundly gifted painter was plagued with mental illness and frustration throughout his life. Yet he was so brilliant and articulate when it came to his art.
Or Sylvia Plath. Her poems always have those morose undertones which indicates how she must’ve been feeling at the time.
Even one of my favourite bands wrote their best and their most emotionally charged songs on their second album, where the songwriter lamented his feelings of isolation, pain, longing, disillusionment, anger and overall negativity. Even though at first the album was a commercial failure, it went on to receive cult status. And currently the same band, who now seem to be happy, radiating positive vibes and quite free from turmoil, are writing songs which are sewn and fitted for the mishap that we call the 21st Century. They seem mainstream and robotic, rather than their early material where they were more honest and original.
I’m just questioning the fact that is it possible to create a piece of work that has an overwhelming out pour of negative emotions, just so that it can go on to become great? Or is it possible to be peaceful, shiny and happy to create something that you hope can be just as great, yet it comes off as mediocre, mainstream and boring? Do people always need negativity to influence every creative muscle and organ in their bodies? Does negativity always define success? It just doesn’t seem quite clear to me.